President Obama's point about how it is going to take more than 4 years to dig out of what Bush left us was good. But it begs the question, and one that won't be asked. How was one of the most hated presidents in history able to achieve his goals passing whatever draconian and undemocratic laws he wanted, able to engage in warmongering unchecked, absent his party controlling the House or Senate?

Stella_Guru wrote:How was one of the most hated presidents in history able to achieve his goals passing whatever draconian and undemocratic laws he wanted, able to engage in warmongering unchecked, absent his party controlling the House or Senate?

Most of the big items on Bush's agenda were passed when his party controlled both the House and Senate, and were done using "reconciliation" rules, which prevented the Democrats from using the filibuster to block them. This was true for both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The GOP temporarily lost control of the Senate in mid-2001, when Jim Jeffords switched from "Republican" to "Independent" ... but he waited until after the tax cut bill had passed through conference. The GOP regained control in the following year's elections.

The Medicare Drug bill also passed in 2003, when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate. Even so, it required a remarkable degree of arm twisting, and barely succeeded.

The Patriot Act and the Iraq War AUMF were both passed in the aftermath of 9/11, when the country was temporarily inclined to rally around Bush and his polling numbers were sky high.

If you look at the later years, Bush didn't really do well at getting his legislative agenda implemented. His main objective for the second term (privatizing social security) failed to go anywhere.

Most of the other stuff Bush accomplished was via executive orders, appointments, etc. The executive branch has a lot of power to set policy without input from Congress.

The authorization for the use of torture during interrogations is a good example. Bush authorized it on his own. Obama repealed that authorization on his own. It's true that in either case Congress could have pursued impeachment, as the ultimate way to stop it. But the GOP controlled the House up until 2007, and I guess in the last two years of the Bush administration, the Democrats decided that (unlike having sex with an intern) merely violating the Geneva Conventions isn't enough to justify impeachment.

All that said, it's true that the Republicans tend to be more unified and lock-step in Congress, while the Democrats tend to be more flexible about letting their members pick and choose what they support. That gives the GOP a bit of an advantage when it comes to ramming through their agenda.

Henry Vilas wrote:On cnn.com's homepage is this question: Who do you think fared better in the second presidential debate?

The results so far (with over 33 thousand responses) has Obama leading, 65% to 35% for Romney.

At the risk of suffering Huck's wrath, I think that once again the narrative is driving a lot of people's perception about the debate. The President was on the ropes! He needed a good debate to close the gap! Whoa! An uppercut with his left and Romney goes down! Watch for the next debate, the one that will decide the outcome of the election!!!

Yeah, I think Obama won, or at least he did what he needed to do which was not appear like a milquetoast. The fact checkers are on his side, he was feisty and persistent. But if you're a complete moron, or an irreversibly dedicated Republican, Romney scored some huge points. He said "jobs" a lot... and I mean a lot. He came off as very caring about women's issues. He really nailed the President on Libya and "Fast and Furious". Those people weren't swayed.

So we're back where we started. The battle for the independent voter and the swing States. Expect to see Romney/Ryan in Ohio a lot over the next few weeks. It really doesn't matter what the popular vote says, if the President wins Ohio, he'll very likely win re-election. And he's got a comfortable lead there.

Stebben, I wasn't saying I believed any of those things, but Meade and Ned did. The Republican party fluffers felt like they had plenty to crow about.

And I was very disappointed that Obama didn't pounce on Romney's fantastical description of "Fast and Furious." Anyone who took the time to read that Fortune magazine article about the program knows that little if anything that Mitt Romney said about "Fast and Furious" was accurate.

And I was very disappointed that Obama didn't pounce on Romney's fantastical description of "Fast and Furious."

He wasn't allowed to respond. Yeah Mitt was super shady in that bit. He continually made it sound like no one had any idea what it was even about? Clearly he doesn't read newspapers, websites, or watch TV. And it was started under Bush of course.

Oh this is just classic. I hope Meade is gonna be outraged cause someone fibbed.

And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.

Buuuuuuut:

Not a true story.

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

I will write more about this later, but for tonight let me just make a few quick additional points. First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women.

Oh Mittens you silly little freak. What is so funny about this is that his comment has become a mockery on the intertubes, but it wasn't even true. Ha.

... a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

ROMNEY: ... And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?"

And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.

==================

I don't see the falsehood. Romney didn't say that he asked for a study to be conducted. He didn't claim that he assembled the binder. He said that he went to a number of women's groups for help in finding women for his cabinet. One of those groups was MassGAP.

Is the argument who originally initiated the idea? Did Romney go to them for their help? Or did MassGAP present the binder to Romney without him asking for it? The fact that he used their recommendations in the binder tells me that it wasn't just another piece of unsolicited junk mail.

butters wrote: He said that he went to a number of women's groups for help in finding women for his cabinet.

Which he didn't. They created it before he was elected and then presented it after he was elected. There is no indication he ever asked for it, or thought it was an issue in his cabinet. MassGAP knew it was an issue.

butters wrote:The fact that he used their recommendations in the binder tells me that it wasn't just another piece of unsolicited junk mail.

What a trooper:

Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything.

This is my favorite part:

Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?